CBS' Mary Mapes, in 'Vanity Fair,' Defends Role in 'RatherGate'

[sabra]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001393128

CBS' Mary Mapes, in 'Vanity Fair,' Defends Role in 'RatherGate'


NEW YORK In the upcoming December issue of Vanity Fair, Mary Mapes, the CBS News producer who lost her job after the disputed "60 Minutes II" Bush/National Guard report, writes, "I must answer the bloggers, the babblers and blabbers, and the true believers who have called me everything from 'feminazi' to an 'elitist liberal' to an 'idiot.'

"If I was an idiot, it was for believing in a free press that is able to do its job without fear or favor. ...I didn't know that the attack on our story was going to be as effective as a brilliantly run national political campaign, because that is what it was: a political campaign."

....

Mapes writes that she had felt the Guard segment was a big success after airing on Sept. 8, 2004, until the following morning at 11 a.m. when she learned that a bunch of "far-right" Web sites were claiming that documents were forged.

That same day about 3 p.m. she recalls staring at the Drudge Report and seeing a big picture of Rather at the top and a headline saying that he was "shaken" and hiding in his office. The phone rang and it was Rather, telling her he'd just heard about the Drudge headline and he wanted to assure her that he was not "shaken" and was not even in his office.

He signed off with a favorite expression of his: "FTA" for "---- them all."

[rocktivity]

1. Mapes was an idiot for going with the story

when she knew had neither the original documents nor their original source.

:headbang:
rocknation

[bowens43]

2. Lets not forget that despite all the hype from the right

the memos were never shown to be forged. Rather should never have caved.

[Burning Water]

4. The problem was

they were never shown to be authentic, either. And the burden of proof is of the accuser in a case like this. "Presumption of innocence" is a legal term, but for fair-minded people is also of use in real life.

Not that I don't believe the story was true. I do. But the evidence that was there is now all tainted by this, at worst fraudulent and at best sloppy, piece of work. Mapes deserved what she got because she suspended her critical judgment for some unknown reason. Having your heart in the right place is not enough in this brutal world. Thinking you are right without actually being right is not enough, either.

[Bridget Burke]

9. The "evidence" shows no sign of forgery....

From the article: In the end she observes that the outside panel that probed the report and found correct procedures were lacking did not investigate the legitimacy of the documents. She claims that a researcher has since shown her typography on other documents from the period Bush was in the Guard that suggest that the memos she obtained cannot be easily dismissed "as being forgeries."

The Accusation? (a) That Bush had strings pulled so he could join the TANG unit rather than touring Beautiful Southeast Asia & (b) that he didn't even complete his oblibation?

That's fact. It's been known for a long time but Bushie & his fans have just been ignoring it.

[Brotherjohn]

10. Agree. There was much more evidence, even within the TANG story...

... to verify the claims made in the documents.

Rather and 60 Minutes shouldn't have caved so easily.

[papau]

11. "researcher has since shown her typography" is the Illinois lab

It also disproved the Microsoft word/modern printer theory of the right wing.

[Polemonium]

13. problem: the truth was ignored based on a technicality

Fair minded people expect the truth, and generally don't tend to ignore it when the packaging is less than perfect. This story, however, imperfectly packaged should have lead eventually to more thorough investigations which would have told us what we all know to be true.
* used privilege to get out of doing his duty.

FYI: the right's spin doctors do far worse almost daily than any oversight by Mapes. You probably would notice that the right's spinners of untruths get promoted, or is your head in the sand?

[Burning Water]

17. FYI: the right's spin doctors

seem to be able to get away with it, don't they??

You probably would notice that the right's spinners of untruths get promoted, or is your head in the sand? I did say I believed the story, did I not?

Fair minded people expect the truth, and generally don't tend to ignore it when the packaging is less than perfect. This story, however, imperfectly packaged should have lead eventually to more thorough investigations which would have told us what we all know to be true. It's not exactly a "technicality" if the evidence of a crime is not real evidence. That's sort of how you tell what is true and what is not. The evidence.

Yes, I believe Bush skipped out on his obligation, based on what we know of his character, associations and other acts. Many people, however, do not see him like that. I believe that MM was trying to put out a story that, if unchallenged, would have convinced many people that * was not the man for President. Unfortunately, she failed to do her homework, for whatever reason, and not only was the public unconvinced, I think it had the opposite effect and convinced many that the "Main Stream Media" was out to get Bush. Now we know that is not so. If anything the MSM is either on Bush's side or thoroughly intimidated by him. But it is the perception, not the facts that often matters.

You say the story should have led to further investigations. Yes, if should have. Except that, rightly or wrongly, the evidence got discredited, and that became the story. The story fizzled and died.

Is this hard to understand? Have I described the situation inaccurately? Let's assume that MM had the story right and that the evidence was, not just factual, but copies of actual documents. She still couldn't prove that, at least not before she went public. That right there is sloppy, sloppy, sloppy, and her research was rightfully faulted. She got what she deserved.

Unfortunately, the American people didn't.

[the other one]

15. Proving "authenticity" is almost impossible.

OTH, forgery is much easier to detect. The fact that the documents in question were not proven authentic is of minor concern, especially with the supporting evidence. The fact that they could not be disproven BTSOAD (beyond the shadow of a doubt) is good evidence that they were genuine.

[acmejack]

6. At he very least, you would think CBS would move heaven & earth

to find out WTF those forgeries came from. I would be exercising my so called investigative journalists & sparing no expense to uncover the true facts.

I will have to try and see if Dan's daughter knows, I have yet to meet Dan himself, even though he lives here in town. His daughter Robin, is a very busy local activist so maybe I can catch up with her.

[Brotherjohn]

8. EXACTLY! You cave and you guarantee what the conventional wisdom will be.

In this case, the CV has become that "Rather used forged documents".

But the documents were never proven to be forged. For every "expert" the right produced to say they were, there were valid counter-arguments made by experts saying otherwise.

Despite all the experts claiming "they COULDN'T have been produced in the 60's", it's impossible to prove a negative.

Yet there were experts on the other side of the argument produce documents using same era typewriters, with the same features as the documents in question. That didn't prove they were produced in the 60's. But it proved it was possible.

[riverwalker]

3. FTA

I'm with you, Dan.}(

[PurityOfEssence]

5. As much authentication of the documents as possible is necessary

Some of us have been saying this all along: those documents have NOT been shown to be fake, and they certainly haven't been proven as such. Not only that, but they're quite consistent with what such things should look like: short--having been typed by a non-typist as a CYA measure--and motivated by events we know happened. Although we only have photocopies, at least those can be looked at forensically to see if the paper and toner are consistent with machines where such documents were stored. There ARE some things that can be done to get closer to authenticating them.

Let's also talk about the purging of other documents while Junior was Governor: Killian's secretary said she typed such things; where are they? Let's also show the dynamic by which the Bushies bully the media and the media lays down for them, and by all means let's smear and slam people like Thornburgh. People who drag the discourse into the sewers have to be fought with the same tactics.

If it can be shown that these are very likely copies of authentic documents, this can be used to show the deliberate deception of many in the media, and that's a worthy endeavor.

These people need to be fought at every turn, and this is a very important instance.

Sumner Redstone should be ashamed of himself; to keep on the good side of the reactionaries so he could expand his holdings through pending deregulation, he sinned against the soul of journalism. Perhaps we should just call him Judith.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. You summed it up well

[Burning Water]

12. Right!

The documents need a thourough examination. If they are forgeries, let it be proven. If not, let that be shown, also. The truth will make us free.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Anyone calling them forgeries needs to be raked over the coals

This isn't the Soviet Union; burden of proof is on the accuser. Once CBS realized it couldn't absolutely authenticate them, it withdrew the contention that they were real. This was as it should have been. For others to call them fakes, they need to have proof, and there is NONE. What this allows us to do is legitimately call anyone who represents them as fakes as being absolutely incorrect until they've heard these arguments, and from that point on, they should be called liars and deceivers. Informing them is a shot across the bow, if they persist from that point on, they're liars. Reactionary pundits have already been informed of this, so we can just skip directly to calling them liars. ("Look, thing: you KNOW there's no proof that they're forgeries, so you're a filthy liar.")

Personally, I'm somewhat obsessed with these documents, but it'd probably be much more fruitful to show how the ruthless thugs on the right crush any opposition with distortions, and doing a time line on how Junior had his records purged would show them to be truly despicable. Lest we forget: the asshole pulled strings to get into the Champagne Squadron--when he barely passed necessary tests--learned to fly at taxpayers' expense, then treated the whole thing like a game, stopped showing up for physicals once they started doing drug tests, then went AWOL and lied about it over and over. He did not fulfill his duty and he repeatedly lied about it. Character is important, dammit.

[KittyWampus]

26. Yes they HAVE been proven fake. The Secretary said she didn't type it

she said she typed one almost exactly like it. Killian had no other secretary. The one Rather had contained an error in terminology... it used a Marine term and Jr. was in TANG.

Someone gave Rather a doctored document containing 99.9% accurate and damning info about Bush and a minute error that ended up calling all the rest into question.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. Ridiculous crap.

She said she typed memos with similar content dictated by Killian, but these were not those.

Where are those memos? They've conveniently ceased to exist.

The theory here is that Killian typed his own memos to cover his ass. This is a VERY PLAUSIBLE explanation, and the shortness of the memos is consistent with this, especially concerning the typo.

That she typed official memos and he typed additional ones to REALLY cover his ass is not only plausible but sensible. For you to claim that her's negate the possibility of his is silly.

By what pronouncement do you claim those to be "doctored"? You're making an accusation you can't back up, on top of a ludicrous assumption that if Killian had official memos typed he didn't create others himself to cover his ass.

By what idiotic and simplistic mechanism do you presume that the existence of one set of memos "proves" the impossibility of another to exist? The ONLY credible discord I've heard is that the parlance was more armyspeak than air forcespeak (NOT marinespeak).

Please explain yourself, and please explain how you KNOW what happened over thirty years ago in a byzantine organization like TANG.

(Oh, and others, please feel free to chime in...)

You've proved NOTHING.

[AngryAmish]

14. We repeatedly proved the authenticity of the docs here on DU

Someone should post the old threads.

[Gregorian]

18. Bush- what we know versus what we can prove.

The Bush family is like the bicycle thief who stole my bike while I was on vacation. I know he's the only person who knew I had a bike. The only person with a motive. The only person who could possibly be suspect. But I can't prove it.

We have a problem. What would a doctor do? I'd call this a subclinical diagnosis. We're doing everything we can do. All we have on our side is luck, and one slip-up of the perpetrator.

America needs a Bushectomy.

[Lucille]

19. The problem wasn't docs' authenticity, it was their provenance

Mapes and Rather should hang their heads in shame that they did not check out the story--the changing story--of where the documents came from. Rather said that he was lead to believe that they needed to check no further because at the last minute Don Bartlett, speaking for Bush, failed to dispute the documents' authenticity. Bartlett's implied acceptance of the documents gave Rather and Mapes the confidence to rush the story on the air. In other words, CBS was played like a violin.

The documents' dogy provenance, Bartlett's last-minute okay, the coordinated campaign to present the docs as forgeries, and the fact that the TANG story bumped the scheduled story---on the Niger forgeries, are all things that should make someone as smart as Mapes go "Hmmmmmmm." Too bad her ego and hurt feelings get in the way.

[realFedUp]

20. "Rathergate"?

Howabout BushAWOLgate?

Bush was still AWOL. Blaming the messenger is
always a Republican ploy.

[lyonn]

21. Thank you Mapes for making this a story once again

The thugs out a CIA agent for their bs propaganda and they get all the excuses in the world on the msm for why this isn't so bad. CBS puts on a show that makes bush look phony and all hell breaks loose. The media gets out their magnifying glass and says ah ha, this is a forgery and the masses follow the logic like sheep. We golden oldies know what happened when it came to getting out of fighting in the Viet Nam war, if you pulled the right strings or knew the right person you were out. Fine, I was against the war, my theory was get out anyway you can (religion, etc.) but, what about those that were drafted with no one to pull strings for them. We know the routine. And many died and were head f-cked, wounds that are with them to this day. This war that idiot son has got us in is the same only much worse. Keep talkin' Mapes and maybe Rather will give her some help. Hey, would CBS? Nah

[creeksneakers2]

22. She's on to at least some of what I think really happened.

I think Mapes is right. There was a well coordinated campaign to get CBS. To understand that though, one must stipulate that the documents were forgeries, and the facts given by them weren't accurate. I believe this was the case.

CBS News called the White House the night before the story, and on the morning of the day the story ran, showed the documents to Dan Bartlett. If Bartlett checked with Bush, he'd find out facts in the documents weren't true. Knowing that, then the only conclusion they could have come to was that the documents were forged.

There was a previously unexploited predicament investigative reporters are in. They must rely on the targets of their hit pieces to keep falsehoods from appearing in the story. "I trust you'll stop me before I hit you." If the target, Bush in this case, doesn't cooperate, the reporter is at much greater risk of making mistakes. A guy like Karl Rove thinks of things like this.

Realizing that the documents were forgeries, the White House could have raised a ruckus and crushed the story. They didn't. They instead ran some boilerplate response that sounded like a non response. They let CBS swallow the hook. The producers of 60 Minutes II later claimed that one of the reasons they went with the story was that the White House gave such a casual response.

Then the sting.

While CBS was putting the final touches on the piece, the White House could have easily located some document experts and some outlets on the Internet that could help them spread the word. Creative Response Concepts is linked to blogs involved in debunking the guard documents. The earliest known person to post the forgery claims on the web was not a document expert, but was a GOP insider. This all happened right after the story aired. It was like the White House knew in advance, because the White House did know in advance.

The White House even faxed out hundred of copies of the documents. They only fax things out when they will benefit them, so they must have known very early that the story would benefit them. I've never heard of any better explanation for faxing the documents than a sting.

One last thing that convinces me that the White House let CBS swallow the hook is that the documents contained factual errors, such as an officer intervening on Bush's behalf who had in fact left the guard a year earlier. If, as I believe, the story the documents told wasn't true, then the White House MUST have known.

There is a big story here, but I doubt if CBS or anybody else will ever pursue it.

[Boo Boo]

23. Dick Thornburgh is personal friend G.H. Bush, served as chair of

the Republican Governors Association, was the Republican Governor of PA, and was Attorney General of the United States in the cabinets of Ronald Regan and G.H. Bush.

CBS' "probe" was a political stunt. They lynched their own people to placate Republicans. It was tantamount to a political purge. The documents were never proved to be forgeries. Bush has never answered the core assertions behind the story.

Les Moonves is a chump.

[Ernesto]

24. Who is Role?..... n-t

[KittyWampus]

25. The SECRETARY Proved Document To Be Forgery. She Said She Typed

one almost exactly like it BUT NOT THAT ONE.

And the Secretary pointed to a term included in the document that was, IIRC, Marine terminology. It was out of place since Junior was in the TANG.

So- who would want to give Dan Rather an artificial document that contained truthful and damaging info for Bush but also had a small, artificially inserted discrepency that would call into question the provenance and integrity of the entire document?

BTW, Miers was the one who was in charge of scrubbing those TANG documents.

[daleo]

27. Now that Bush lies are beginning to be exposed

This will come up for a fresh, and unbiased examination. Hope so, anyway.

[Gin]

28. The story was a way to discredit Rather....He pissed off Poppy

and shrub never forgets...it was payback...Powell was paid back by Cheney also for keeping him out of the loop when he was Sec Of defense....when the big dick got the chance to return the favor..he did so on a global scale. The only game they know is tit for tat.

Nothing but a bunch of kids.

[daleo]

29. It could be that it was a Bush/Rove scam

But these things have a way of looking different once the momentum has shifted. If Bush starts to go down, people will see the thing in a whole new light. It would be ironic if a Bush/Rove dirty trick ended up backfiring on him, with the public believing the document is true anyway.

[tom22]

31. A more credible presentation would have had

an interview with the secretary instead of the documents.